| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the last name in his military records be corrected to reflect “Marble” vice “Mable” and that his rank of E-4 be restored. He also notes that the Army owes him 10 months of pay. The applicant states that he enlisted for a period of 3 years but was asked to leave the Army because he “saw something regarding” the assassination of Doctor Martin Luther King. Other than his self-authored statement, he submits no evidence in support of his request.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted for a period of 3 years and entered active duty on 6 July 1960. All of his enlistment documents, including documents signed by his parents, indicate the applicant’s last name was “Mable.” The applicant authenticated numerous documents, throughout his military file, as “Mable.” He has submitted no evidence that his last name was recorded incorrectly in military file.
The applicant successfully completed training and in December 1960 was assigned to an artillery unit in Korea. By November 1961 he had been promoted to pay grade E-4. However, between December 1961 and August 1962 he was convicted by three special courts-martial and punished once under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. His offenses were all associated with periods of AWOL (absent without leave) and failing to report to his assigned duty location. As a result of his second court-martial he was reduced to pay grade
E-3 in February 1962, and as a result of his third court-martial, he was reduced to pay grade E-1 in April 1962.
In May 1962 the applicant returned to the United States and was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. In August 1962 his unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. His unit commander cited the applicant’s chronic disciplinary problems, repeated misconduct, and habitual AWOL, as the basis for his recommendation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation; consulted with counsel, and waived his attendant rights.
The unit commander’s recommendation was approved and on 7 September 1962 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
The applicant has provided no evidence that he was erroneously discharged or that he is entitled to have his rank restored. In the absences of such evidence, there is no basis to grant the applicant’s request.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 7 September 1962, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 7 September 1965.
The application is dated 6 December 2002 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the 3-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__AAO__ ___TAP__ __RWA__ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083913 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030515YYYYMMDD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708226
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 April 1962, he submitted a second...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708226C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 April 1962, he submitted a second request for hardship discharge. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001210C070206
The records further show that the applicant was 21 years old at the time of his discharge. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 22 December 1962, the date of his discharge; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 21 December 1965. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001210C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 October 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001210 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The records further show that the applicant was 21 years old at the time of his discharge. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 22 December 1962,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072764C070403
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 18 April 1962 the medical proceedings were forwarded to the separation authority, who approved the board recommendation on 24 April 1962. Section XII,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085879C070212
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He has presented no evidence which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005876C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 October 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060005876 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711423
If he did not agree with the type of discharge, he could request review by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), the request to be received by that board within 15 years of the effective date of his discharge. On 11 July 1962, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004107090C070208
Jeanette McCants | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. In effect, the applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show his service in Vietnam. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing service in Vietnam from 21 March 1962 through 31 March 1963.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04101831C070208
When a Solider is being processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation, is an indication that the applicant is fit. An individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits...